Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:38AM
from the stock-up-on-duct-tape dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The DHS's color-coded terrorism risk warning system has often been criticized on a number of grounds. However, it seems that at last DHS has taken note of these criticisms and is finally planning to fix one of its problems. Which one? Well, since the two lowest levels have never been used in the history of the program, the solution is obvious: just get rid of them! In the new system, the lowest level would be yellow, 'guarded,' representing 'A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.' While it's nice that they're at least no longer maintaining a pretense of it being for anything other than fear-mongering, I don't think this was the kind of change most people were hoping for."

The problem with doing that is that such a sudden change will make their motives clear. They have to use this frog-boiling approach - essentially a very gradual declaration of martial law - so that nobody will notice a sudden change and complain.

Pedants: Yes, I know the frog boiling thing is a myth [wikipedia.org].

I think you need to read a bit more closely. A quote from the Article:"He described how the critical thermal maximum for many frog species has been determined by contemporary research experiments: as the water is heated by about 2F per minute, the frog becomes increasingly active as it tries to escape, and eventually jumps out if the container allows it."

for a while we had 15 minutes of hate against insurance execsthen we had our 15 minutes of hate against auto execsthen we had our 15 minutes of hate against bankersthen we had our 15 minutes of hate against tea baggersnow were going back to having 15 minutes of hate against racists (isn't that hate for haters?)

And this is different from your insurance company deciding that they don't need to pay for your cancer drugs? How?

I'd rather have an impartial panel that set standards (ie, drugs costing more $x are used where the person has more than y years of life ahead of them) than insurance companies cheating everyone.

Insurance companies lie and claim they'll help you until the critical time when they don't. The "death panels" would set standards that you'd know about beforehand. If you don't like your insurance compa

Fox is only "hate on demand" if you think opposition to leftist ideas qualifies as "hate". I haven't seen much "hate" on Fox. They certainly don't like Obama very much and aren't inclined to give him a fair shake but then MSNBC treated GWB in exactly the same manner, didn't they?

Personally I regard Fox more as a tabloid network than a politically biased one. I spent a few hours in the ER earlier this month where the only channel worth watching was Fox News. I wasn't paying that much attention but about 80% of the coverage consisted of stories and discussion about the Dugard kidnapping. Apparently they had found a bone in the neighbors yard. Nobody knew at that time if it was human or not but apparently this fact was worth three hours of prime time coverage and a few discussion panels.

Why do you assume they are acting with nefarious intent when a much simpler explanation is good old fashioned Governmental incompetence?

Because the parties responsible benefit from the behaviour, which suggests intent. The USA's military budget is a wonder of the Modern World. Politicians get away with deleting public records in the name of security, those that want to go on military adventures for the benefit of private companies they are associated with get to do so. Laws that make it harder to protest against unpopular actions get passed ("Free Speech Zones" - wtf?) resulting in greater freedom for those in power to act without visible criticism. Surveillance, warranted and unwarranted (literally) is passed with little criticism. And all on the ticket of fear.

So you tell me, if factions of people have the smarts to gain control of one of the biggest nations on Earth, institute policies that benefit them in myriad ways to your own detriment, why on Earth would you call them incompetent? Cost overruns on various government projects? Ask yourself where the overspend is going. It doesn't just vanish - it goes into someone's pocket.

Isn't it funny how an entire office goes crazy with word about *possible* layoffs coming, but somehow "Someone" (which always seems to be the other major political party than the person telling you) has this hugely elaborate plan, involving ridiculous amounts of logistics and pre-planning, involving thousands of people.. And nothing is leaked? I mean really, Not a single whistleblower in the government? I mean hell, an executive can't even buy a Corporate Jet, or $30,000 wastebasket and keep it from the media.. but "they" are building mass concentration camps, and planning an elaborate means at turning this country into a puppet controlled by the Illuminatti. Or that they reaaaalllly want to force everyone to depend on the government for health care so that <insert silly reason here>.... Yeah. that makes much more sense then just stupid committee decisions by government employees, who are constantly having to cover their ass..

They don't drop the terrorism alert level, because IF they dropped it to its lowest, THEN an attack happened, they would be dragged in front of congress, and be forced to testify about why they are so stupid, then be fired..

Partial suspension of habeas corpus, increased surveillance, paramilitary "police", restrictive border controls, property seizure, etc. mean we almost have de facto martial law. An oppressive government would never declare martial law anyway, but would disguise its actions under a layer of propaganda.

No one has a Constitutional right, 2nd Amendment or otherwise, to threaten someone else.

Carrying a gun != threatening someone else. A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry. If you have evidence that someone threatened another human being at a town hall meeting then I suggest you call the authorities and report it.

A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.

A holstered/slung firearm that represents no threat to anyone is a piece of jewelry.The only way a weapon (of any kind) represents no threat is if there is a certainty that it will never be used. There's no reason to carry a weapon that won't be used, but if it might be used, then its very purpose is to be a threat that others take seriously. Possibly a legitimate threat (a deterrent against attacks to your person, perhaps), but a threat nonetheless.(Even if you guarantee you will never use your weapon, it

Carrying a gun != threatening someone else. A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry. If you have evidence that someone threatened another human being at a town hall meeting then I suggest you call the authorities and report it.

That's pretty context sensitive. When you're carrying a gun somewhere that guns are not usually carried, other people think something's up. Some for instances: Out in the woods hunting -- not threatening. While at skeet shooting range -- not threatening. On a commercial airplane -- threatening. While standing guard over a big pile of cash -- not threatening. While carrying signs about bloodshed -- threatening. While doing shots in a bar -- threatening. While being part of a riled up mob -- threaten

Carrying a gun != threatening someone else. A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.

I'm a gun owner. I don't have phobias. And yet if I were taking a walk around my state's capital square [cityofmadison.com] and witnessed an apparent civilian with a rifle "safely slung" over their shoulder, you'd better fucking believe I'd wonder about intent. And then I'd quickly guide my family away in the opposite direction (.

In certain contexts, the only purpose to openly carry in this manner would be to make some kind of political statement.

Personally I wouldn't openly carry under any circumstance other than hunting or competition (mainly because I don't want to give away the fact that I'm armed and become a target) but I'm not afraid of those that do.

Taking a gun to a political rally sends the message "agree with me or I shoot you".

It only sends that message if you are paranoid enough to regard anyone carrying a gun as violent enough to want to murder you for disagreeing with them. I've gotten into my share of arguments with people with guns (usually over their selection of firearm;) and I haven't been shot yet. Amazing, isn't it?

That's why I said he's a jackass. But I'm rather sick of hearing Democrats and their supporters condemning the people who show up at Town Hall meetings. I didn't hear any of this condemnation from them when left-wing groups exercised their 1st amendment rights while Bush was in office.

I didn't hear any of this condemnation from them when left-wing groups exercised their 1st amendment rights while Bush was in office.

That's because left-wingers who tried to get into Bush rallies were denied entry, and/or promptly thrown out if they did manage to get in. Even wearing a patriotic t-shirt [kgw.com] was enough, as long as it was the kind of patriotism (i.e., the real kind) that the right-wingers didn't like.

Also, none of them were armed. Seriously, what do you think would have happened to someone carr

... Obama would just get rid of the alert system entirely. It was developed by GW Bush, and therefore is just fundamentally wrong. It just creates panic anyways... it servers no real purpose... nobody is going to hide in their bunkers or join a local militia if we go to the highest terrorist alert level, are they?

My parents did the same with me. Always making sure i was home before dark, that i didn't reach for boiling pots of water on the stove, trading my lunch money for toys, telling me to not get in cars with strangers. i was far more likely to be hurt playing tag than to be kidnapped if i got in a car with a stranger. What the hell did my parents know? It wasn't any of their business anyway where i was or who was holding me for ransom. Fascist fear mongering assholes.

More to the point, your parents cautioned you against talking to strangers. They didn't wake you up in the morning and say, "Be especially vigilant today, little Timmy, it's a RED ALERT kidnappers day!"

Awareness and sane response to threats is the path of a mature, informed citizen. Spreading some kind of terrorist tea-leaf weather report is fear-mongering, plain and simple. (And just what are American citizens supposed to do in response to "threat levels," anyway?)

Terrorists have chatter... we have people investigating and listening in. There's also OpSec. When a cell changes behavior it can be an indicator that they're up to something. Militaries and gov'ts do the same. When the Pentagon starts ordering more pizza all the sudden... something's up. Kidnappers generally don't give such signals. Nor do we have the CIA/FBI tailing them or the NSA listening to them.

If there was a string of robberies in your neighborhood and the cops stopped by to inform you of this... would that be fear mongering?

To me fear mongering would be:

"You're going to be robbed if you don't vote for me and let me double the police force""Your soul will burn in hell forever if you don't send me money or if you love someone of the same sex"

There is no winning in security, just managing the value of the asset against the likelihood of attack to determine the level/cost of securing it. The money you spent on Schlage locks was a waste... unless someone tries to break in and FAILS. If they succeed or no one tries, the lock was a waste, right?

i suppose the CIA and NSA *could* reveal their sources and methods and give us a break down of why they think an attack is more likely today than yesterday. "Jeff, our agent in Kabul overhead a conversation between Abdul and Habeeb. Jeff will be staying at the Kuwait Marriott for the rest of the week, his family lives in Arlington. Abdul and Habeeb, please change your target or time table, enjoy the head start." Great idea.

The lack of "what we're supposed to do" is a fault in the system (which can be changed). But calling it tea-leaf weather report assumes a great deal of incompetence or malice in the gov't... or indicates a great deal of paranoia.

Having lived with and worked with the people who do this kind of work for my entire life and having been an intel analyst with a clearance i can't name here... i think you're either very uninformed (which isn't entirely your fault), or you're letting paranoia/partisanship do your thinking. Yeah, W was an evil idiot, but he wasn't an all powerful mastermind nor as bad as we wish him to be.

You're right -- the system is mostly worthless to the civilian. The original intent of the color-coded scheme was to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies. Each color actually corresponds to specific guidelines for them.

I'm not defending the program as such -- just clarifying the DHS's original intent as best I understand it.

If it were "every once in a while", I'd agree. The problem is that the terrorist threat is overstated and overrated in the first place, and is only a mechanism to exert more control by the government over the population. Terrorists have killed fewer people in the US over the last 10 years than auto accidents have in one. Yet where does the money go?

At times of no war, the doors of the Temple of Janus were closed. This happened several times during the reign of Augustus. Since then, this rarely happened, often because the Persians were being a nuisance.

Ignoring the fear that it was probably _designed_ to instill in the population and potentially the global population... It's just a pointless system.

If this system is at all meant for the general population, it's failed. When I go out on vacation, or planning on visiting a major city and/or landmark, I never even think of the Alert colors.

I understand that it may potentially only be for government agencies, especially law enforcement, but even then does saying we're at yellow, or orange, or even red _really_ give them direction? I'm assuming even if there are general rules in place to "do x and y when at color z" they only get rudimentary things done. Say, bringing in more personnel or putting more people on standby status. Even the agencies need to know _what_ to look for and in what fashion the event is predicted to take place.

Really, beyond fear, I can't see the point in the system at all. If there is something to report to the public, report it. If there is something to report to government agencies, I bet there are a bunch of better ways, already in use, to alert the proper acronyms of the who, what, when, where, and why.

Government WANK alert system. Whereby the wankiness of a government is scaled by public opinions, and if the scale hits a certain point, everyone in public office at that time is tossed out at once, and we elect a whole new batch?

We can have a National Referendum day in 60 days from the time the WANK alert is triggered. 15 days to register to run, 15 days to organize campaigns, and 30 days to run. If people campaign before the official campaign limit, they are automatically excluded from the ballot.

And nobody can run if they have ever held elected office before.

I'm sick to death of Damned Professional Politicians. Lets get some amateurs in and see if they can do better.

I'm sick to death of Damned Professional Politicians. Lets get some amateurs in and see if they can do better.

I always thought this was a good idea. Ok not a good idea clearly but it points out how poor our election system really is. To make it to the top in politics you have to be a corrupt fast talker who is willing to do w/e it takes. This is exactly what you DON'T want in politics.

Then we actually got to take it to the test. California elected a bodybuilder that knew nothing of politics, hadnt gotten the necessary education and spent most of his life covered in oil flexing. Clearly this man has many disadvantages as a politician. And came to power through being the ultimate victor of the popularity contest so he was never forced to be a 'politician'.

Considering he was given a state with many referendums which is a huge disadvantage. I think he has done quite well. He even used his weight as a state to push various issues country wide. And since he did it as a republican he has done much to tie the sides together, working in a non-partisan way. This has been a great healing effect on the state and you don't see the same fervent partisan attacks you do in other big states.

Now imagine if we chose someone uncorrupted by politician but also someone who was well educated, spent their life learning political theory and philosophy. And better yet not forced to kowtow to the pubic opinion. People often say democracy isn't the best system it's the best we've had so far. I don't know if that is true, looking at the current state of politics I often wonder if returning to a monarchy system or other ancient system would be that bad. The only real advantage democracy has is that people are less likely to rebel since they are given the illusion of control through the election process.

That bodybuilder is also a very successful businessman, who built most of his wealth through study and hard work.

And... first you ask for amateurs to run for office, then you want people who've spent their lives studying politics. Isn't that what "professional politicians" ARE?? Make up my mind!!

Fact is, if we had more successful BUSINESSMEN (the kind who've built a business from the ground up) in office, maybe the country would be run in a more businesslike fashion and we wouldn't waste taxpayer dollars on

Lame. This should have been about the government warning us of an imminent need to wank.

See, the problem with the current Terror Alert is that there is basically nothing you or I can or should do differently in response to its changing level. So what good does it do other than make us nervous and stressed? But that's no good, stress is bad and leads to people making stupid mistakes that could let a terrorist attack in. So the warning sh

Green = "Go ahead, let your guard down, see what happens"
Yellow = "There is a new budget up for vote, and if you don't give DHS more money the terrorists win"
Red = "Imminent threat, only direct intervention by Steven Segal can prevent global disaster"
Black = "We told you this would happen if you didn't give DHS more money"

Those "threat levels" dont mean anything anymore because we are numb to them. The harassment that you get through security is really just an illusion: if you feel like you are inconvenienced and your stuff is being searched, then you feel safe. I remember going through security 3 times on one trip...getting to my hotel and pulling out the power brick from my briefcase only to have my pocket knife come out with it. I didnt intentionally bring it...but...holy crap on a crap cracker...I made it through secu

Law enforcement use a similar color code system. Officers must always maintain the "always alert" (on guard) awareness level of vigilance. The only reason to have codes below this is for training and discipline purposes. If an officer lets their guard down and drops below the "always alert" level, the safety of the officer and/or citizens can be jeopardized. So, on a public spectrum, I agree with the change that the public only need to know our code awareness level from "Guarded" on up.

So, on a public spectrum, I agree with the change that the public only need to know our code awareness level from "Guarded" on up.

Actually RTFAing, I see the proposed levels and while still almost certainly useless bullshit, they seem less like useless bullshit than the current system. They aren't just scrapping the lowest two levels, they're changing their meaning.

Personally, I'm just happy to see the change because it means no more putting blue in between yellow and green. That always bugged me, as a slightly OCD person who used to sort things in rainbow order, from crayons to the Skittles I was eating.

That's definitely not true. There are quite a number of nonzero-but-low possibility scenarios that one could legitimately be considered "fear-mongering" over. (Asteroid impacts, etc) Fear-mongering doesn't mean that there's no chance of something happens, it just implies that the rhetoric is out of proportion to the risk.

Agreed -- mostly. You're right in that just because something is possible doesn't mean it's likely.

OTOH, there are a number of likely scenarios and we are certainly no better off security-wise than we were before 9/11. Sticking a bunch of rent-a-cops in front of possible terrorist targets and airport terminals and giving them metal detectors and bomb sniffers will stop only the casual terrorist who hasn't thought things through.

From what we know now, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took years of planning. Do

It would be "fear-mongering" if there were NO possiblity of a terrorist attack.

Since there are lots of things much more likely to kill you and destroy your property, ya it's fear mongering, as in "selling fear". The public really can't use the color of the Terrorist Alert Status to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, or their property from harm. All one can do is worry more. Who can add an hour to their life by worrying more? Checking your smoke detector batteries is more likely to save your life than knowing the current color code.

And the continuous state of alert just causes degradation and ignorance.

People would just ignore it like they do with some warning lights in the car. "You don't have the seat belt on" is just ignored since they already know it, and know it's illegal in most states to not have the seat belt on but they don't give a crap.

So an "Elevated" state of alert is in reality "Normal" to "Ignorable". A "Critical" state of alert will be considered "Elevated" and when it's critical all traffic will have a standstill

But this should make all the Young Libertarians on Slashdot delirious with delight. Isn't the price of freedom supposed to be eternal vigilance?

Yes. Vigilance against the Government. I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.

Yes. Vigilance against the Government. I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.

And our own incompetence isnt going down anytime soon either. As Albert Einstein said... There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.

How is that racist? As far as I know, people of all races have joined the lunatics who launched the attacks. There's even a "white" american or two who have joined, are gained some prominence for doing so. I think everyone is getting a little tired of the old racist claim.

Somehow, I miss the "young libertarian" reference, or slur, or whatever. Libertarians didn't lead this nation into war, that was the doing of NEOCONSERVATIVES. Neocons are seperate and distinct from the more common conservatives, many of whom have been duped into following the neocons.

Whatever - the price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance. But, vigilance != paranoia Paranoia is a trait of those aforementioned neoconservatives.

Libertarians didn't lead this nation into war, that was the doing of NEOCONSERVATIVES. Neocons are seperate and distinct from the more common conservatives, many of whom have been duped into following the neocons.

Both of these statements are true. It is also true that a great many libertarians and old-school conservatives continue to support the Republican party despite the fact that its agenda has been neocon-dominated for at least fifteen years. If you vote Republican, neocon policies are what you're voting for. So it's kind of hard for us lefties to believe people who say, "Well, here's what real [libertarians|conservatives] believe..." when they're the exact same people who gave us Gingrich and Bush.

Actually, I do have some sympathy -- I'm a pro-gun liberal, so when I vote Democratic, I'm aware that I'm voting against a portion of my interests. But I don't try to hide it, or pretend otherwise. I can't say "real liberals support gun rights" when I can look around and see that the vast majority of people who call themselves liberals are, in fact, anti-gun. I just have to deal with it, and hopefully be honest about what I'm doing. It would be refreshing to see some of the same honesty from the other side of the aisle.

Well, Mr. Dvorkin, it appears that you and I could sit and discuss politics, and we could agree and disagree all day long. But, take note of the post following yours. We aren't capable of critical thinking!! That is the province of people who post anonymously!!

BTW - I don't really fit into any party, but the Libertarians come closest to a fit for me. God, I hate that we are only ever given two choices. Can't we ever get anyone to run for office besides Dumb and Dumber?

Many of us (libertarians) belong to the Republican party, but only because we are trying to take it back from the neoconservatives. I, myself am a member, but I have informed the party leadership on many occasions that, while I do have the ability to support them financially, that I never will until they become more welcoming to libertarian and anti-war views. I, personally, have made a lot of progress in talking to conservatives who are now waking up and realizing that they were betrayed by their leaders

No, you are wrong there. Libertarianism does not support even the EXISTENCE of corporations, which is an unnatural shield that is granted by the government to shareholders. Articles of incorporation are granted by states, and entitle the owners of said corporation to conduct business and obtain personal profit without liability for their actions. This is the ANTITHESIS of libertarianism.

If everyone really understood how libertarianism worked, 99% of people would be libertarians. I used to be a libera

I am tired of government manipulation of the public via fear. There has always been terrorism, there always will be terrorism, and from what I can tell, a very high percentage it is state sponsored, in one way or the other.

Obviously we need military and intelligence services; they shouldbe the best in the world, and we need security - but what happened on Sept 11th is ridiculous and NEVER should have happened - all of this bullshit about all of these

If it's orange (I've flown once during orange) then there's a bit of tension in the air. Makes for a more unpleasant airport experience, but it also tends to make people more aware of their surroundings.

I've never flown in not-orange ever since they came up with the system. I'm not some business traveler, but I fly between three and six times a year round-trip to various places around the country, and I always hear the same recording of some guy saying "The current threat level is orange". And I don't think anyone has so much as batted an eye. From San Francisco to Denver to freaking JFK Intl., I've never seen people act more alert and suspicious after that announcement.

Like this B.S. threat level is so well correlated with actual terrorist plotting that, if you're worried about terrorists, it's safe to lower your guard during a "yellow" threat level. Please! People are going to react the same way to "suspicious" things they see in an airport, and they're going to pay just as much attention either way. Nobody cares about the threat level, for one because it never changes, for two because it doesn't make any sense to do anything different -- if you're paranoid about terrorists and care to be alert on the 1-in-a-billion chance you personally spot terrorist activity, you will be just as much so during "yellow" as "orange". And if you're like me, and not worried much at all about terrorists, you're going to keep a vague eye out but you're still not going to give a shit how scared TSA says you should be.

I've never flown in not-orange ever since they came up with the system. I'm not some business traveler, but I fly between three and six times a year round-trip to various places around the country, and I always hear the same recording of some guy saying "The current threat level is orange". And I don't think anyone has so much as batted an eye. From San Francisco to Denver to freaking JFK Intl., I've never seen people act more alert and suspicious after that announcement.

Maybe the only proper way to run these alert levels is to take a clue from the efficiency experts. This is from memory since I can't find a good link but the story is something like this:a. A factory wanted to determine the effect of lighting on productivityb. They increased lighting and productivity increased. Yay!c. Just to be sure, though, they decreased the lighting level and were surprised when productivity increased. Qua?d. Conclusion sometime people change their behavior just because something cha

It's not useless. It's simply a symbol of control, and a way to keep people cowed. They haven't taken it to red, they're reserving that for when they need a shot of mindless patriotism to get something illegal taken care of, so they can claim it was done to "prevent terrorism".

It's not useless. It's simply a symbol of control, and a way to keep people cowed.

Yeah, I meant useless from our point of view (which the OP seemed to suggest wasn't the case), not useless from its creator's point of view. I think we all know the use of the Be Scared Alert for them, long before Tom Ridge spilled the beans.

No the DHS can act as if it's always yellow or orange or whatever color they keep it locked to. The rating system is supposed to be FOR THE PUBLIC. I don't think since oh what was it Sept 11, 2001 that we should collectively be on a state of constant panic and alert looking for terrorists. Now if they get some credible threats and/or chatter that something is imminent then yes it would make sense to raise it from Blue or Green or whatever to yellow or orange to get the public involved in helping them. Howev

Look, it's a department whose sole purpose is defending the homeland. How is it fear mongering to stay on "a constant state of vigilance". And when would they ever go less than that, realistically? Do we want a Department of Homeland Defense whose alertness to terrorism status is "Not paying attention.", which is what is less than "vigilant".

What we want is a population with sufficient intelligence and maturity to be able to recognise the War on Terror for exactly what it is; a sham, and Orwell's "war without end," which exists for the express purpose of enabling the gradual, overt introduction of total fascism.

The GWOT has no legitimacy, and the DHS doesn't either. They are both instruments of fascism, and absolutely nothing more.

If you're having trouble believing that every single terrorist incident which has occurred in the last ten years,

Because if you only have one level, you can't raise it just before an election in an effort to scare people into voting for you despite your terrible track record..

Oh wait, Obama doesn't need that.Nevermind.

On a side note, I wonder how much the DOHS spent coming up with the new system?I would be shocked if it was less than a million.I'm sure they hired numerous "consultants" to do various "impact studies" etc. etc.